Football Rehab

Style vs Substance vs Hypocrisy

2012-02-18T21:19:00.001-05:00

By Dr3

It’s interesting that it has taken the Italians (largely) winning the guaranteed annual Anglo-Italian battles, for perspective to arrive in my readings as regards to the ‘meaning’ of results in the Champion’s League. It suggests, that for all of the ‘worldview’ writing that I thought I was reading, that there still was/is an overarching pro-English agenda, a consequence of being English-speaking/reading after all. Either that or, the undeniable, certified truth that the English Premiership is the best football league in all aspects, such that any dithering in ‘dominance’ on the part of any of its teams can be explained away with the right perspective.

It’s interesting because there is an acceptance that both of Real Madrid and Barcelona can beat any of their teams without looking any further. They’re better. They play better. But defeat to the Italians causes something else. A deeper reflection. They can’t be better. Or even that good. Instead it is a reflection on their team having a poor season, trying to find the right balance, UEFA co-efficients and its meaning, sample sizes and the like (not to point directly at Whittall). It’s the type of perspective and wisdom not being afforded to the very same Italians, where instead a defeat to Tottenham represents further proof of an aging Milan from an aging league. It had nothing to do with Max Allegri’s team adjusting tactically in his debut season. Nothing at all. It begs a series of questions about the perception of quality.

One apparent reality is that the quality of the Italian Serie A is diminished in the face of European results, such that it's decline and inferiority is in fact taken as truth, while pretentiously written as 'truth'. Manchester United defeating a Champions League representative from the Italian Serie A in 2007 by 6 goals, meant that the Premiership was 6 goals better than the Serie A. No mention of Calciopoli needed.

Another fallacious conclusion which I’ll suggest is now ubiquitous, is that there is a correlation between style and quality. It’s very intriguing because it actually demands that once of a certain quality, a team must play in one way. Such that teams as defensive tactically as Italian teams are, represent inferior ones. It’s interesting because it is so widely accepted, a bit similar to “keeping the ball requiring less energy/work”. According to whom? Without being facetious, undoubtedly weaker teams do attempt damage control and fast breaks a la counter-attacking. However, counter-attacking can be so engrossingly different tactically, that to summarize counter-attacking into a tool of the weak is to be lacking in football-acumen and to be an ass.

Counter-attacking like Sam Allerdyce’s are the ugly weak-team stuff that dreams aren’t made of; not Mazzarri’s. The efficiency required to play like Mazzarri’s or even Mourinho’s teams, demands exceptional ball usage and accuracy in order to be effective; traits not usually associated with a lack of quality. Anyway, without getting too much into the perception being justified or not, it’s just been really, really, very interesting, witnessing the hypocritical, premature, alarmist, sordid depth of English football’s postmortem examination.

Want more? Go ahead and SUBSCRIBE to Football Rehab!

2011-2012; Notes on a scandal

2012-02-07T00:37:00.001-05:00

By Dr3

The past year for me was about three things; The Weeknd, talking more football with my brother, and a decreased urgency to deposit my two cents. The third has meant that while by the time of posting a subject may have become banal, I would have avoided sounding like this or a staffer at Liverpool Fc. Even better it meant that I enjoyed my football more; without thinking back to talking-points, I thought back instead to brilliant play. It also means that while I enjoyed the football in the moment; in hindsight I can rant my ass off, like a staffer at Liverpool Fc.

Why are you referring to me in work, about anything other than my work?

On that very note I will start sadly by saying what I feel needs to be said about Liverpool Fc versus Good Sense. Racism is black and white. Saying something racist doesn't mean that you’re a racist. Racism doesn’t have to be intended. What is said/done in a ‘racist’ incident is far less important than the fact that it was said/done, at least until punishment. Throughout the entire debacle the context being provided has been about what was said, and where it came from, forgetting that in a world of Good Sense the debacle wouldn't exist since it wouldn't be said at all. I have had too many conversations about this situation really, resulting in many analogies some of which I am more proud of than others;

Did Andy Gray have to make a kitchen reference to be sexist?
Is rape only rape when there is bludgeoning and rope?
As an immigrant from a country in which beer bottles can be displayed in public can I do the same in the U.S. and claim ignorance?
Beyond laws, is it also the U.S’s responsibility to even teach me what American faux pas are?

I was forgetting though that there is nothing quite analogous to the savage history of everything ethno-religious/racist. In defending Saurez as a non-racist of that sense, the goal is lost and instead a villain is cast in Evra. By fucking parading black men on television as spokespersons for blackness everywhere, there’s validation; Evra is card-playing, and the FA should know better. There really should be no prize, and I shouldn’t have to link to good sense as an exception, but here are perhaps some of the more measured summations (born out of fear no doubt) of the events I really hope to never see again from an institution.

There was another fear though, more rampant than ever in 2011; the fear of admitting groundless preferences.

Usually intelligent person: Eggs taste better than sausages.

Me: Why?

~~Usually intelligent person~~ Egg-fan: Egg-eaters make more money annually

Think about that the next time you jump into X-league is the best in the world, or X-player is better because of titles won. It’s amazing to me just how plausible people seem to think winning titles in a team, reflect so definitively the quality of an individual. The refrain of ‘carrying his team’ a la Zidane 98’ or Napoli-Maradona is undoubtedly going to continue as nostalgia battles present and past reality. It’s annoying, in that good and even great players are bastardized into amateurs for the sake of the glorification of some icon, something that Brian Phillips has a field day with here (read it twice). It will carry on though, as football brains struggle to face the non-existence of differentiating ‘traits’ amongst a certain quality of player. As such, the tangible, no matter how obviously skewed and flawed, is and will be purported as the proof positive of true champions; “Did he win?” “How did he play in the WC final?” “What happened in the head-to-head?”

Football is in the details

2011-2012 has also been the year in which ‘tactics’ has become a buzzword in football, like safety or sustainability in big business. It’s ubiquitous. ZonalMarking talk is everywhere. A game decided by a flying squirrel redirecting a deflected shot towards a player’s own goal, is still a tactical victory. False nines, high pressing, interchanging wingers and high defensive lines have replaced pace, tuff tackling, and getting crosses into the danger area; at a cost. I wrote before about disinformation as regards to defense-attorney-like, one sided presentation of information on calciopoli. The danger this time though is misinformation. In this year of talking more about football with my brother we shared one thing; ZonalMarking is dangerous. As with Garganese, the reality is that I am not nearly pompous enough to hate a person or even have a problem with a person for having a different opinion/position to mine. The issue arises when an opinion with its inherent bias, is not being seen as such, and instead is being taken as fact. A result of the nature of the presentation of information at ZonalMarking (stats, facts, and bar graphs), is that what are in fact opinion pieces, are being read, recycled, and cited, as fact. 3-5-2 is a “tactic”, and positional changes regardless of context are presented unintentionally, as factual, intentional, strategic deployments that won a game (as a side note, formations are not tactics. Tactical set-ups; yes. The tactics would be how it functions; for example all of Napoli, Udinese and Barcelona roughly play a 3-5-2, yet their styles are immensely different due to ‘tactics’).

A case study in talking with my brother;

In one of the 20,000 Classicos of 2011 Benzema scored after Victor Valdez made an error while doing what can perhaps result in less goals conceded in the long run as shown on some graphs here, or something. What followed was Barcelona taking the game back and winning convincingly. The verdict; tactics?

ZonalMarkingman: Change from 4-3-3 to 3-4-3 allowing Busquets to command the midfield rendering Madrid’s midfield as helpless as a bunch of Angus Eve’s
.

My Brother, coaching license and all: Overloading of the right flank to expose Coentrao on a switch of play with a constant 3-4-3/3-5-2, Dani Alves nullifying Marcelo’s threat.

Me: Entire game was 3-4-3/3-5-2 where Cristiano missed two sitters and Marcelo deflected a Xavi shot in the process deflating egos.

Conclusions?

ZonalMarkingman: Jose lost

My Brother, coaching license and all: Jose lost

Me: Details

Therein lays the issue. Even though they had the same conclusion, how do we explain the disparity in how the conclusion was reached? Looking at the average heat map, and average position versus ZonalMarking depictions of formations supposedly before and after the tactical switch, again how can there be a disparity? Even then what is the correlation between this change and what happened in the game, and how can it be shown to have stronger correlation than say, wet grass or fatigue or that same flying squirrel?? Preventing myself from the ridiculous here’s just a quick example of opinion meets ‘fact’;

Busquets’ average position can be seen to be very deep comparative to the rest of the midfielders. ZM purports that he was playing in defense. My brother, myself, and two other people with whom I watched the game didn’t think so. The formation to me was obviously 3-5-2 from the very beginning and Busquets’ apparent changing of position was a result of Real Madrid’s changing pressure. When Real pressed hard and high, Busquets had to support deeper. When Real didn’t, he could play higher up the field. The other train of thought though is that it was as a result of Busquets being pushed further up the field with Dani Alves also advancing further, that Real Madrid could no longer dictate and stifle the midfield. Do I care which is right or wrong? No. What I care about is going to a forum, or facebook, or youtube, or a blog, or googlereader, and having to read the excruciatingly banal analyses that quip about tactical battles, variations and victories citing an opinion piece, as proof.

Punditry needs to stay the same

It is in this vein that I really hope that the evolution of football on-field is not going to result in one off it. 2011 was the year in which the traditional no.9 was slowly rendered obsolete in World (European) Football, coinciding with other changes. Goal droughts were far from exceptions for the Pazzini’s and Carroll’s, and only in England (where flat 4-4-2 is the average formation) are out and out wingers still plying their trade. Sadly, we are seeing the end of an era of football; Beckham/Yorke style is now done, ushering in a new one. It will make for some interesting viewing seeing Antonio Valencia, Ashley Young, Lennon, and the like going through this transition if at all English teams adapt to the rest of Europe. With the death of no. 9’s comes the death of wingers a little more slowly. The revolution should see many English teams shelve the 4-4-2 in favor of less tactically rigid set ups. Off-field though, my concern is that there might be more and more slightly misinformed versions of ZM attempting to explain the revolution. More and more Opta statisticians that don’t understand sample sizes and degrees of correlation between statistics (for example a stat showing x is true doesn’t show that the opposite of x is false or vice versa). I fear that this transition is going to hurt too much to read and hear. While we currently lament the mundane nature of punditry, imagining Warren Barton talking ‘tactics’ and statistics is a scarier prospect than hearing him talk about pace and whipping it in there. If I’m being honest, I would much rather deal with intelligent people fully aware of the hackneyed nature and shortcomings of some klutz, than those same people armed but misguided with scandalous ‘knowledge’ from a pseudo-Cox.

Very special mentions: Please note even the humble one (Ranieri) screaming and angry with a ref

Inter selling these:

and buying this:

Last but not least Wayne:

Want more? Go ahead and SUBSCRIBE to Football Rehab!

Football Answered

2011-12-05T19:06:00.006-05:00

By Dr3

Thus it is proven. Possession is directly proportional to goals conceded

In short, yet another reactive post by me. But this weekend as ever, football reacted, and answered, with careless goals, and detrimental effects. As is usual, Cox writes something, people salivate and purport it as interesting and thoughtful. In one of his latest installments of banal football philosophy with graphs, he insists that playing from the back, can actually be safer than ‘safety-first’ hammering of the ball as we know it. He then somehow managed to back this up by graphing Goalkeeper short passes, to the previously unrelated to safety, overall possession. Anyway, without turning this into a diatribe against the man, or me yet again being a full out hater here’s the point (read as points);

Possession football can be a form of defending ‘overall’ as is underlined in his post. However the line between safety and defending is being blurred. Even Barcelona knows the right time to boot the ball out to infinity. Safety is about managing risk. To bastardize defenders everywhere else as being people who simply boot the ball out as part of defending is more than a bit ridiculous.
Playing from the back assumes that the players at the back are technically gifted enough to do so. In watching ‘some’ players do it with seemingly nonchalant ease, couch/internet footballers lacking in a bit of perspective (making a judgement call) may believe that it’s a tactic to be employed as the norm rather than the exception. However, if Nelson Rivas and Titus Bramble are the defenders in the backline, how realistic is that? Does this mean that only Barcelona should play from the back? No. Many small teams can and do as even he mentioned with Swansea (Bari of 2009-2010 being the best ball playing backline including keeper I have ever seen). As a matter of fact, very few teams don’t. But when channels are blocked, whereas Dani Alves could dribble his way out of it before finding a pass, Demichelis would probably stumble, before allowing Bolivia to score in a WC qualifier.
Small teams need to manage risk even more so than big ones. Had the genius shown that small teams playing from the back (whatever that means) conceded less goals than others, then perhaps his analysis regardless of how oversimplified would hold more substance. Unlike Barcelona, who can afford the occasional foul up, concessions of cheap goals can sometimes mean the difference between relegation and survival for the likes of Norwich. The odd calamitous goal is no trite matter at certain positions in the league table.
There is a reason why Tiki Taka has been mastered by few. As a philosophy it’s incredible. In practice, not so much. All it takes is one Oleguer for it not to work in defense, and one Kluivert for it to falter in attack. Again, if the argument is simply about possession perhaps being the way to play both sides of football, then that’s fine. Stretching it to redefine safety first is a bit foolish though (which sadly is his conclusion). As is the case when something is successful, added to perhaps a bit of denial; people (as in Cox et al.) seem unwilling to accept that Barcelona are this good, because the players are simply not very normal like you, me, or Muntari.

Here's Whittal about "possession football" being a fetish, but again, seems to be implying in closing that Barca football can be exported. This is problematic because to quote George Costanza; It's like saying to Pavorotti, "Teach me to sing like you."

Want more? Go ahead and SUBSCRIBE to Football Rehab!

Trinidad's own; Shaka

2011-12-02T17:01:00.001-05:00

By Dr3

Went to my school too.

Want more? Go ahead and SUBSCRIBE to Football Rehab!

God save the Refs

2011-11-27T14:29:00.000-05:00

By Dr3

With the recent attempted suicide by a Bundesliga referee, a lot of my google reader updates have been centered on:

The insanity of the refereeing job and the pressures that exist considering the pittance that they are paid, in some cases as part time employees (as is the case in Germany).
Not pressuring the referees, since they unlike us are not given the benefit of pseudo real-time hindsight.
How do we save these men and women

Whittall wrote a decent piece answering the third question by turning back to the debate of ‘technology’ in football. In his piece though, I was marginalized as a purist as I am very much against any technology that is not goal-line related. As such, I have literally said “it will slow the game down too much”. The idea of technology being some sort of panacea for all football ills is something that has always been interesting to me, but not interesting enough to write about. In addressing referees and their wellbeing though, one simpler, less radical (maybe even more) possible change is being overlooked.

Firstly, the non-purists (as defined by Whittall, this would be the pro-technology folks) envisage a limit to the amount of times a team can appeal a decision, as well as a restriction on the types of decisions that can be appealed to begin with. Assuming that the decisions that can be questioned are all ‘spatial’ (with the exception of offside??), this would be fairly straightforward to implement. Was that foul really inside the penalty area? Did that ball cross the line?

Problems?

Well there is that spatial issue. If we go into the realm of a handball, or a foul, the reality is (as can be seen with the Pepe/Dani Alves debacle) that even websites can look at the same video tape, frame by frame, and still have a different verdict. As such the onus is not removed from the referee and into the hands of almighty ‘technology’, making it pointless. Fouls are subjective. Period. The pretense that dictates that unlike the time taken in discourse to make the ‘correct’ decision, technology-related ones would be swifter is laughable (again, refer to Dani Alves/Pepe). We need not imagine, as it already exists in American football. The replay is viewed, and then the referees confer; as they do now. Offside decisions would also be problematic as a play that was interrupted by an incorrect call, would then be restarted without any of the ‘imbalance’ that is part of this beautiful game.

This is something that as a purist I struggle to look past. Unlike American football, there aren’t any set shotgun plays, and defensive set ups for each ‘play’. There are no specific routes that strikers run for a particular play. Play doesn’t stop after a tackle is made automatically. American football is built upon intense, but stop-start segments combined, making a game. Special teams are substituted in, and literally 70% of the game is in transition (Changing formations, Time outs, first downs, special teams, etc.).

In stark contrast, Football is very much about momentum. Suddenly a team with naught percent possession can’t seem to be dispossessed. Suddenly their attacks are unrelenting. Suddenly an indomitable-defense/toothless-attack relationship has a role reversal, echoed through the stadium. So much so that time wasting, and feigning injury when under siege is an actual tactic that is part of every teams DNA. What this suggests is that teams may use the appealing option as a tactic in this line, something that can supposedly be corrected by limiting the amount of appeals a team can have. Which in itself is problematic because how do we legislate that in 90 minutes of a game, only ‘x’ calls are genuinely questionable and can be appealed.

My Radical Solution (non-purist)

Goals can be fitted with a sensor that is the diameter of a football beyond the goal line with LED(s), with everything else remaining the same (no change in rules).
Allow one replay per game per team for appealing. (Can you say Mourinho?)
Make referee robots
Only certain decisions can be appealed (again though leaving the decision maker untouchable from everything except fans, and media…Mourinho??)

My (maybe) Not-So-Radical Solution; Change the Rules!

Make players more accountable by changing the rules of the game to penalize feigning just as harshly as rashness. If red cards were the punishment for being a sick faker, Sergio Busquets wouldn’t bring goggles to the dressing room, much less to the pitch. If the same sort of review process is also added, whereby after a match, videotape evidence can be used to lengthen bans, and add fines to players guilty of faking, we can possibly rid the game of what is quite honestly, very-facking-embarrassing (see below). In so doing, the referee has less acting critiquing to do, and less UNICEF tirades to face.
Rewrite the rules of the game, such that it doesn’t read like the Bible. When someone looks at the rules, they are not supposed to get FIFA’s message for them and them only. In so doing again, culpability is removed from the individual referee, and placed at the doormat of our favorite scapegoat. How can an applause be greeted with a red card for Sneijder and not so for Rooney? The answer is that dissent is criteria for both yellow and red cards. Being less vague can only decrease grey areas.
Referee’s should be full-time professionals, and they should be assessed and part of a rating system that is more transparent. Some criticism has been levied towards newspapers in Germany that run a rating of the worst referee. I agree, but disagree. Players are exposed to the same scrutiny. Such that if referees are full-time professionals in the sport, this is the job. Referees have to be culpable. There has to be an incentive to be as impartial as possible and threatening people’s incomes usually has that effect. By being more transparent, the public would feel more security in the rules being applied to all, and have fewer avenues for Atkinson-hates-us debates. In seeing poor refereeing performances result in the demotion of said-referees, I believe chatter would become more: “you’re a wanker”, as opposed to the current: “I’m gonna kill you, you thief”.
The extra referees can work, but they cannot be as timid as Samir Nasri.

Not really a 'side-note'. RIP to Gary Speed

Want more? Go ahead and SUBSCRIBE to Football Rehab!

Otherness

2011-10-17T16:09:00.003-04:00

By Dr3

A long time ago now, a post was written on the Run of Play about racism in football. Specifically, that ‘it’s bad’, needs to be rooted out, and is sadly underreported, using one of the Clásicos as an example of that practice. What followed in the comments section for that post was a barrage of la di da ‘intellectual’ fackery-postulations about the vile nature of political correctness, ‘otherness’, making intelligible contributions to the ‘debate’, and the snobbish business of judging foreign racism from our perspective etc. It bothered me. It bothered me to the point of commenting; twice. Nonetheless the battle of wits and “missing my point”(s) continued under the guise of logic, and the valiant goal of bringing more than “racism is bad” to the table. It reminded me though as to why, while hating the sensationalism of the broader media, my disdain for this type of ‘forum’; supposedly intelligent and pretentiously overly analytical, would never be matched. At some point the need to show one’s intelligence always supersedes whatever the topic is. It’s annoying. (It's particularly worrisome that one of the comment-ers actually wrote for the same site before)

Fact, political correctness is born out of fear - same idiot

Everything becomes a dissertation. Everything is about putting your body of work and area of specialization (academically) into a topic through some logic. Everything is open to debate as long as there is clear logic. Pompously forgetting that some things are not void of bias, or emotion, or history, or context, and that *most* dissertations are full of shit, and simply document what you were obliged to do in grad school and will most likely never revisit in life. Here is a completely non-football tangent but says it ALL about this topic, please read (racism again was the issue, but this time in a law school, made tellingly more impressive because it was written by a white woman with some perspective, and not born out of fear).

Anyway, Otherness defines somehow, that ethnicity and race are akin to having a big nose or being short, in Spain (as defined by some other idiot).

But in trying to bring it back to football, Otherness would represent those other players that we like, while accepting that they are not the best, and sometimes far from it. It’s interesting that in a football culture that chides new-money supporters, and bandwagonism at club level, that we equally question a person’s affinity for these others on the player level. Every discussion about a player you like turns into, “X is better though”, “what has he done”, “he hasn’t won anything” etc . Does liking a player we know to not be the best mean that we are inherently underachievers or something? Are we supposed to only like the best players out there? I remember talking at length about Crespo, with comparisons to Van Nistelrooy, Luca Toni, Batistuta, Trezeguet, and the list went on for an hour, simply because I said he was my favorite player. Maybe it’s another side effect of all this over analysis, or maybe this is how it’s always been. I just really hope that one day I can say that I like Lavezzi, Robinho, or some Other player, without assist stats being used to tell me that I’m a wanker.

Blog Stuff

I haven't been updating the blog for some time for a number of reasons:

Firstly, Inter in super-laymans suck really badly, making it hard to write or think about anything else other than the debacle that is my team, which I don't want to do.

Secondly, I was really turned off by this whole affair particularly because the assumption was that I was white, and appalled only due to wanting recognition and political correctness points. Added to which I am divorcing Richard Whittall since his writing is becoming more and more like the intellectuals at the RoP; attempting to 'blame' Tevez's diva moment on his shady third party ownership, amongst other indiscretions. Bandini is now my favorite at that site.

Thirdly, my Facebook page has made me lazier such that linking to something interesting is clearly easier than writing.

Fourthly, Less and less time. Such that I will be changing the way I do posts, to be more like the Fiver, but still not as long. Only some posts would be dedicated to one topic or at least I will be trying to keep my posts short. Reason being, I rarely sit reading posts that are too long (mouse wheeling exercise), why should you?

Until next time ~~this month.~~

Want more? Go ahead and SUBSCRIBE to Football Rehab!

This Season, Watch the Italian Serie A

2011-09-06T22:31:00.014-04:00

Friday @ 2:45 ET
Ciao

So about that Neymar..

2011-08-08T19:58:00.007-04:00

By Dr3

Let’s do this by a series of questions

Who at 19 was supposed/expected to be the talisman of their country?

In short the answer is no one. Ronaldo at 18 was on the bench for Brazil in 1994, watching on as the established big boys led by Romario did what grown-ups are supposed to do. What about the Messiah? Do you remember? World Cup 2006? Copa 2007? Was he "supposed to be" Jesus already? No. Even the irrepressible Pele, was a star at 17, but certainly not the focal point and/or expected savior. So, in short, it stands to reason that we are actually saying that based on what we know of Neymar, he is better than the said legends, such that he should be able to do more, and means more, than them at comparative ages.

Why is Neymar supposed to be the star?

Based on the Brazilian league performances and some flashes of genius in his debut for the Brazilian National Team, and the mouths of his agent, trainers, retired players, and twitter, Neymar became everything he is not. He became more decisive than Cristiano Ronaldo. He became a player second only to Messi. He became a player capable of challenging for the Ballon D'Or while playing in Brazil. Also, due to the overall youthfulness of the team, his age is rendered irrelevant, and he represents one of the more decorated players on the squad. But what about Robinho? What about Pato? It’s interesting that the “new” next phenomenon is the piñata for all media/fan stick, while the older new ones somehow escape without any scrutiny. Looking back to 2002, shouldn’t it be Robinho and Pato that form the new Rivaldo-Ronaldo, while Neymar does his Ronaldinho impression? Instead we combine Rivaldo and Ronaldo into a samba heap of expectation; call it Neymar, and allow Pato and Robinho to live as new-era Denilsons.

What is that about Pato and Robinho?

Personally I like Robinho. But personally, he embodies every sentiment about wasted potential. The kid at Real Madrid and the man at Ac Milan are not only different in age, but in tons of ineffables from mentality to quality. He no longer has the tricks. He longer is marquee. He is now a team player that you wish was more individualistic. He now needs to be cast as Robin to some Batman, in order to be effective. Remembering that at one point he was “competition” to Messi really speaks volumes of his demise. A man broken it seems, by his time with money-bags Citteh.

As far as Pato goes, there’s an idiom detailing what to do when you have nothing good to say. The next Ronaldo? Maybe the next Ricardo Oliveira.

So yet again, what is the issue with international competitions?

So while Mr. Bourbon loves internationals for many valid reasons, my stance remains unchanged. After 90 minutes in the Copa America the verdict was tattooed everywhere; Neymar = Overrated. While I agree with the sentiment on the basis of the comparisons to Cristiano and the like, the fact that they arrived based upon ONE game summed up everything I hate about the hype machine that is international competitions. Once Brazil was eliminated with not stardust, but hairdos to show from Neymar, the knee-jerk tattoo became a symbol of pride. Validation; he is garbage. I didn’t watch the Brasileirao, therefore in order to make my judgment of a player I will watch the Copa. I will magnify my expectations of a player into that of a demi-god and upon his failure I will label him a flop. I will take his reputation on face value from a league in which Ronaldinho shines while running less than Rivaldo at 39. It’s always the same. It’s always pretty annoying.

Is Neymar overrated?

Yes. But the question should be more existential. It’s not enough that Messi and Cristiano play at such high levels at the same time. While in previous eras there were many Zlatans led by Robbens led by a single Messi/Cristiano, we instead have both at the same time, seemingly only getting better. But it still is not enough. As if there is some prize, there is a never ending quest to label and find the next whoever, even before current players have neared dipping in form. Having "long eye" they call it Trinidad and Tobago, a spin on greener-grass-talk. It’s not a new trend, but it has only been multiplied by the autonomy that is twitter and blogging. It now means that the analysis of the next Ronaldo, is more absolute, as it is unchecked by an editor. It means that even comments in jest reach our ears. Neymar is even more of the next Pele than Ronaldo was in terms of hype, but wrongfully so. He is now also judged more harshly than Ronaldo at his age was, but wrongfully. He is a victim. A consequence of our growing hunger to label a player as one or the other. So while he may be good, the lauders fawn too much such that he becomes an ideal detached from reality. The detractors meanwhile recoil and riposte that there are at least 20,000 players better than him in history.

UPDATES:

I have added a vimeo widget to this blog (top right) of my channel. I update it once a week (Staurday) with videos created by Esoesgallo that I downloaded before his youtube channel was removed.

If you’re on facebook, check out and like the page to keep up to date with the blog and other links. I am going to try to provide some good pictures for a lot of club teams from around the world, so check it out. Otherwise you can still view the page but just can’t participate.

Want more? Go ahead and SUBSCRIBE to Football Rehab!

Knowing..

2011-07-25T22:33:00.015-04:00

By Dr3

Seeing and Knowing

I’ve been trying to measure my words for this subject. For the last time, I will mention or dedicate anything, intentionally, to Calciopoli.

People construct arguments grasping at whatever factoids they can to substantiate their beliefs and their ‘knowledge’, as fact. As if Calciopoli was not ‘smoky mirrors’ enough already, allegiances and disgruntled fanaticism have led to all sorts of ‘truths’ and watertight alibis that still manage to contradict one another. The only new “truth” that has emerged from the second trial for me, is that Juventus were ‘in fact’ the target of a witch-hunt in 2006.

But what does that mean?

I knew that with the original trials, transcribes, punishments and immediate widespread resignations that took place, that everything was right with this world. Justice was served; at last. The thieving Old Lady, in constant collusion with a mobster was finally caught. Legally. There were no tears shed for Juventus. No one defended them. And only one man vowed to fight for his contextual “innocence”. With the publishing of the transcripts that were part of the investigation in the newspapers, it became abundantly clear that conspiracy theorists had been vindicated. With the swiftness and harshness of the penalty, the justice system had appeased a public shamed by the scandal; the justice system works. Lazio fans knew it. Inter fans knew it. Smaller teams felt it. But now the world knew. The subdued voices from Juventus, suggested that the verdict reached was correct, because everyone knows an innocent man speaks up, right?

But then came the revelations. The Inter-relations of the prosecution team became the talk of the Juventus fans, gaining belief from their knight in shining armor. As time went on Moggi had all of the egregious charges brought against him dropped, and it meant that people began to know of something fishy. In some circles, people knew that the first trial was a complete farce. Forgetting the transcripts we read, needing validation of our judgment we started over. In the final twist of the plot Moggi’s lawyers embarked upon the resurrection of some details, somehow overlooked as immaterial in the first trial; knowledge is power the say. It became clearer that many other teams could, and should have been found guilty of the same charges that were stuck to Moggi/Juventus; insipid and ambiguous communication and unsportsmanlike charges. The trials in Naples gave ‘more’ information to the public, and bred new life into the cry of foul from the Juventi.

At this point Stefano Palazzi enters our minds, throwing a wrench at our knowledge. We know that it is said that he has released a 72-page dossier. Somewhere. We know that he has publicly said that “Inter would have been found guilty of sporting fraud too”. But what do we really know?

There has been a lot of talk about the distinctions or lack thereof between the allegations. There has been a cry for parity citing this new evidence. But what evidence? All that we know is that there is a 72-page dossier. Where are the transcripts that were made available to the public as done before with Moggi? What is it that was said on the wiretaps that would prompt a man to go public with an allegation before any verdict, or before making this evidence available to the public? Is that the same process?

Moratti both justly and cowardly has spoken only of the unacceptability of defaming a dead man, sort of playing a dead-relative card, to which Agnelli has spoken up about the intentions not being to defame, but rather to seek parity in judgment. But how could this distinction really exist? How could it be separate if unlike Moggi this man cannot defend himself and be cleared of any allegations? With all the mention of Article1 violations being the only thing that Juventus were found guilty of, it is interesting that no mention is being made that Moggi was in fact cleared of other violations. Not that they were not alleged at all. What we know is that a man has made a supposition. We know that a man who is dead cannot stand. As such an allegation is being touted as truth, as if it is a verdict. As if, even if there was a verdict, that it would represent truth. We supposedly know now, that Inter were just as guilty, just as we knew before Moggi was cleared, that he was too.

We knew that due to a flawed system that the case was passed its ~~statue~~ statute of limitations. Yet we callously promote scandal with factoids and ambiguity that the FIGC should do the right thing. Illegally. We knew the date on which the verdict would be delivered. We also knew that the date in which this verdict would be delivered was the day that the accused-dead-man was born. We know that this was a coincidence though. We also know now that Juventus will seek truth and pursue this case to its full fruition.

In regular life there’s a cliché that says that the more you know, the less you don’t know. In Calcio, the opposite seems to be true. All we have now is a series of innuendo. A belief system tempered by blind allegiances. Grievances with the system when it fails, yet validation when it works; for “us”. How could the same Juventi that chastised/chastises a system as being fraud, now rejoice in a non-verdict declaration by the same system as proof? How could the same Nerazzurri that rejoiced when justice was supposedly served now recoil in disgust when the magnifying glass is on them?

True knowledge is in knowing that you know nothing

This is not about demonizing Juventus. My ‘hatred’ for them is not the one that rejoices in Fulham defeats, or spends all day responding to "Inter Merda". What I hate is the supposed truth that they are of all things, being painted as victims. That there is “new truth”. I can only speak of what I “know”, while accepting that I know nothing. What I believe can be substantiated, but it still does not constitute truth. I know, knew, and will always believe that Juventus were the cheatingest team that I had/have ever seen in football. I didn’t need the courts to tell me that players getting penalties for fouls outside of the box represented unfairness. Neither did I need them to tell me that phantom disallowed goals against Juventus were the workings of some sort of syndicate. My memory of the uproar in Italian newspapers even before the trials concerning Juventus’ cheating is not and will never be gone. I do know though, that Juventus through an illegal/shady process were the targets of a “victimless” witch-hunt in 2006. Victimless because the teams who were cheated by them, mine included, were vindicated. Victimless because fans that pretend that there is absolutely no cheating in their favor deserve no pity; at least not mine. I used “victimless” though, because I do respect the Juventus players, who have stayed and honored their club, and even those who have left or joined since.

I know that the Scudetto of 2006 is a poisoned chalice, but I resent any of Moggi’s insinuations of “everyone is guilty”. Not just because of the results, but because it would mean that I was watching scripted football-reality-TV. I know that a team that is cheating and changing refereeing structures, and committing sporting fraud wouldn’t be a perennial 5th placed team like mine was. I also know that based on what I read, the SIM cards, the car "gifts" and the verdict that was reached for Moggi (only article 1), that the courts mean absolutely nothing. I won’t pretend or hide behind some cloak of infallible impartiality, such that my beliefs are only guided by some divine truth. But I won’t dismiss what I saw on the basis that I have a favorite team. Moggi can wheel and deal, and find technicalities and alibies from all of his friends forever. He may also now classlessly make jibes about Calcipoli, sort of like OJ Simpson making ads for gloves. He can never though, change the fact that I know what I saw.

Football Rehab is now on Facebook. More videos. More pics. More links. Like the page and join in!

Want more? Go ahead and SUBSCRIBE to Football Rehab!

The Fiddler on the Roof

2011-07-19T03:04:00.002-04:00

By Bourbon

In May, one world ends, and you realise that another exists.

Some see it as a nuisance. Some see it as necessary. If left up to some managers, they would have their players wrapped up in cotton wool awaiting pre-season training. Some managers hope that this gives their players a chance to increase their market value (more on that in another article). But the question still is...what’s the point of international football…really? Most international managers position is as precarious as a fiddler on a roof; trying to play a tune, without falling off.

Terrible gulf in quality. The strong always will be strong, the weak will always be weak. As pedantic as the day’s sunrise and sunset. Some anomalies may occur but by and large the average holds true. Who could honestly say that a clash between Honduras and Grenada would make one clear their schedule? What were the odds on the final being anything other than USA vs Mexico?

Except when one looks at the sub stories, one realises things were not so cut and dry. USA qualifying second in their group? Being beaten by Panama? Yes upsets happen, but still who banks on those?

The Copa America always promises to be a spectacle but thus far flattered to deceive. Oh the horror: Argentina and Brazil are out before the final. December 21st 2012 must really be happening.

Except Columbia and Venezuela proved their mettle. Chile as well.[Edit: Well gargle my gonads! In between me typing this and posting it you know Chile got knocked out?] Nothing really could be taken for granted in football.

Yes the same football that women play. Twenty years ago USA would have been the odds on favourite to win any women’s tournament. Ten years ago even. But as the tournament showed, the gulf is closing. The standard is improving. Soon, maybe the Women's Champions League would get more coverage.

Same with the U-17. Holland with their intensive youth football setup earning only 1 point and ending up last in their group? Japan qualifying higher than France AND Argentina?

I love it.

Its football untarnished by inflated transfer fees, agent haggling, and all the other things that make you wonder if the football world has gone mad. The perfect example of playing with the cards you were dealt. Where size does not necessarily relate to success (Compare Brazil’s 80 million to India’s 1 Billion). Where history counts for something but ultimately counts for nothing at all. Where a team gets better by the way I personally respect: with a long term vision in mind. (And don’t try to use the “Barcelonification” angle, since its pointless having a youth system and you still see no issues even considering spending 30, 40, 50 million for 3 seasons straight on one player.) Where it’s a matter of luck and chance for naturalisation, where still Brazil is an exporting market, its not perfect. However It does have its merits.

And its downfalls.

Given the international schedule, minimal time is really available for national teams to develop tactics. Batista had the outlandish notion to get “Argentina to play like Barcelona” so Messi can shine. Well that obviously didn’t work out too well. Public pressure and outrage is easy to experience, witch hunts are common, excuses abound. Pundits pontificate, opportunities missed, and everyone gets a chance to say what should have been done. Opportunity only comes once. The best chance any team has is if there is a degree of transition between the generation on its way out and the one on its way in. It gives an understanding, a solidarity. A solidarity that bonds with football’s most important resource: The fans. The fans know and bond more with a player that they’ve seen blossom. Recent example : Tevez vs Messi. International football goes beyond club passion. Its national pride. A pride hinged upon knowing where those players came from and proud that they are where they are today.

The joy I felt when my club teams achieve success in no way could compare to the feelings I felt when my country qualified for the World Cup. The despair as well, although expected, still didn’t make the medicine less bitter to swallow. The excitement and passion when my cousin became the first in our family to actually get capped internationally was something else. The nostalgia when I got whatever edition of FIFA by whatever means necessary and if the information was inadequate for my country, I would refine it. International football has something, fundamentally flawed, yet intangibly inexplicable. Or maybe it might be more accurate to say that its like that for me.

Then again who knows? If you ask a player which he would rather win: a World Cup or a Champions League…what do you think the answer would be?

Want more? Go ahead and SUBSCRIBE to Football Rehab!